Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Evidence and strategies for alcohol control as crime control

manhattan-institute.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: Evidence and strategies for alcohol control as crime control

#11

Post by thenoblesunfish »

"The mission of the Manhattan Institute is to develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility." [1]

That last part seems pretty antithetical to the idea that you should limit people's choices about alcohol, because of the negative consequences of those choices. That sort of seeming hypocrisy of course invites the question as to what this group's unstated motives are, and since it's a right wing American organization, I'm sure you can think of plenty of theories.

[1] https://www.manhattan-institute.org/about

Re: Evidence and strategies for alcohol control as crime control

#12

Post by Chris2048 »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #7
Chris2048 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can be controlled through access to alcohol, I'd say you have a problem.

This is true, the hard truth is that many people do have a problem with alcohol.

Yes, but I doubt a government could "control people" at a societal level through control of alcohol addicts.

Re: Evidence and strategies for alcohol control as crime control

#13

Post by thenoblesunfish »

It's not really a controversial point, that limiting alcohol limits certain undesirable behaviors. Every bar I've ever heard of allows and usually requires bartenders to cut people off. Almost every locality has restrictions on where and when you can buy alcohol, where you can consume it, etc. The more interesting question is whether we think that the positive social effects of alcohol itself and/or people's freedom to drink (or "individual responsibility" to quote the first sentence of the author's institute's mission statement) are sufficient positives to offset the negatives. (And which political forces see themselves as having a stake in influencing that conversation).

Re: Evidence and strategies for alcohol control as crime control

#15

Post by ClumsyPilot »

thenoblesunfish wrote: post #11

"The mission of the Manhattan Institute is to develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility." [1] That last part seems pretty antithetical to the idea that you should limit people's choices about alcohol, because of the negative consequences of those choices. That sort of seeming hypocrisy of course invites the question as to what this group's unstated motives are…

The mission does not include anything to check that these are good ideas, or even practical.

So it's pretty upfront about disseminating propaganda.

Re: Evidence and strategies for alcohol control as crime control

#16

Post by tibbetts »

thenoblesunfish wrote: post #11

"The mission of the Manhattan Institute is to develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility." [1] That last part seems pretty antithetical to the idea that you should limit people's choices about alcohol, because of the negative consequences of those choices. That sort of seeming hypocrisy of course invites the question as to what this group's unstated motives are…

I’m all for questioning a group’s motives. But protecting personal liberty for everyone sometimes requires limiting personal liberty. I like to be free to not be killed by a drunk driver, for example, and that means we cannot leave drunk driving up to “personal responsibility.” I generally think people should be free to not be assaulted on the street, or by their spouse, or by their parents. I’m not sure that restricting alcohol is the best way to do that. But if it were I don’t think a principle of individual responsibility would get in the way. The crimes they are discussing are not victimless, they impact both individuals and society.

Re: Evidence and strategies for alcohol control as crime control

#17

Post by [deleted] »

foxhill wrote: post #9
pjc50 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean .. yes? Crime is committed by people. To control crime is necessarily to control people, to coerce them into not performing certain acts. Laws, courts, police: all systems of control.

would you consider, say, making camping in public a felony the same sort of “control” as education, affordable housing, job opportunities, etc.? specifically with respect to solving homelessness.

[deleted]

Re: Evidence and strategies for alcohol control as crime control

#18

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

Chris2048 wrote: post #12
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, the hard truth is that many people do have a problem with alcohol.

Yes, but I doubt a government could "control people" at a societal level through control of alcohol addicts.

The article isn't about controlling people, so much as controlling the access and availability of alcohol. And not everyone who has a problem with alcohol is necessarily and addict. Consider the difference between a wedding reception with and without an open bar and the likelihood of drunken incidents. Compare that with a reception where there is no alcohol served at all. True that a hard-core addict can sneak some in, but the chances of the rest of the guests behaving badly reduces substantially and proportionately with their ease of access to drinks.

Re: Evidence and strategies for alcohol control as crime control

#19

Post by Chris2048 »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #18
Chris2048 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but I doubt a government could "control people" at a societal level through control of alcohol addicts.

The article isn't about controlling people, so much as controlling the access and availability of alcohol. And not everyone who has a problem with alcohol is necessarily and addict. Consider the difference between a wedding reception with and without an open bar and the likelihood of drunken incidents. Compare that with a reception where there is no alcohol served at all. True that a hard-core addict can sneak some i…

The article isn't, but the post I replied to is.

> not everyone who has a problem with alcohol is necessarily and addict

I said if you can be controlled via alcohol you have a problem (with alcohol, an addiction) not that everyone who has a problem with alcohol can be controlled through it. I would argue anyone who can be controlled via alcohol is an addict, and not just someone with a problem.

Re: Evidence and strategies for alcohol control as crime control

#20

Post by pjc50 »

foxhill wrote: post #9
pjc50 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean .. yes? Crime is committed by people. To control crime is necessarily to control people, to coerce them into not performing certain acts. Laws, courts, police: all systems of control.

would you consider, say, making camping in public a felony the same sort of “control” as education, affordable housing, job opportunities, etc.? specifically with respect to solving homelessness.

That's a coercive form of control, whereas affordable housing and job opportunities are not in and of themselves. However, some jurisdictions can make them coercive by making them an opportunity people cannot refuse without legal consequences.

(Both this and my previous post should be regarded as descriptive not normative, that is a statement of how things can most coherently be described rather than how they ought to be)

Anti-homeless spikes are control. Unsleepable bench designs are control. Heck, even a sign can be control.

Post reply on HN